Explain to me how this is not blasphemous.
Comb the hymn verse by verse.
Justify every line.
Examples:
"Most Holy Theotokos save us" is repeated throughout the hymn so maybe the line is a non-sequitur and this pair of verses isn't expository, but the fact that these two lines are consecutive is at the very least a cause of grave confusion. But forget about that: how can Mary save anyone ???
inb4
Other urls found in this thread:
ewtn.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
There is a lot of complex mariology behind this, but the gist is:
- while Jesus is the spring of graces, Mary is the "pipeline" if you will
- because Mary's will is and was always perfectly aligned with that of God and is God-bearer (because that's what Theotokos means)
- Christ told people specifically to come to him through His mother to weed out the "stupid stuff" (in the sense of biddings, not people obviously) beforehand
- therefore, Marian devotion is the easiest path to Christ
In reverse that means that Mary is redeemer in so far as she can hold your deeds, your "good" to Christ and use it for the actual good rather than "just" Christ granting what you want.
To make that clear, she is redeemer, because the graces flow through her into the world, not from her.
If you want to understand deep mariology, I recommend the writings of St. Louis Grignion the Montfort. He is THE go-to guy when it comes to mariology and Marian devotion. (in his little book The Secret of Mary, he not only describes devotion to her, but also the gist of mariology - which can, admittedly, be a bit confusing for people not being familiar with it: ewtn.com
God bless
1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all.
Examples for a curious non-Apostolic? I can only remember a couple instances. Thank you kindly.
Thank you for the out of context quotation that nonetheless, even so, has nothing to do with this subject.
So… there is a lot of lawyerly lying at work to justify Marian idolatry?
From your link:
So pure heresy with a little gnostic flavor. Roman Catholics will try to claim that the book doesn't try to promote actual worship of Mary, but it comes awfully close and suggests that people become slaves of Mary and direct all prayers through Mary.
All the sources for that are along the lines of the linked-to Louis de Montfort book.
(checked)
Luke 11:27-28
As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out,
Why? The context makes it abundantly clear.
Redeemer and God is obviously not a reference to the Theotokos.
Just prot paranoia and over-literalism.
Your quotations disproves Marian worship. Jesus contradicts the woman, pointing out that it is not Mary who is blessed, but rather "those who hear the word of God and obey it".
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
she saves us in body, she is the protector of all christians. these long arguments and explainations don't mean anything, they are just confusing andprobably heresy. we love God and all his friends это все
Wew lad
Matthew 12:46 - 50:
"46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Risible post.
It is telling that no one so far has dared to actually listen to the hymn and address its lyrics. Probably because doing so makes it blatantly clear how often during its singing Mary is portrayed as equal to or greater than God.
Right, which is why we venerate all of God's family (Saints) :)
That one quote debunks all Marian arguments based on Jesus always doing what his mother requests of him.
but then you get:
When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own. - John 19:26-27
How can it be that you claim Jesus denied His own Mother, yet entrusts Her to His beloved disciple LITERALLY as that disciple's mother?
Yep, the Holy Mary is the Queen of All Saints, She is below The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, but she usurps Satan as God's most perfect and beloved creation!
Blessed is the Holy Mother, please pray for us.
It also shows that Jesus didn't have any biological brothers and that Joseph probably didn't have children from another marriage. If he did he would have given his mother to be taken in by one of them.
Speaking as someone who lives in a mostly Apostolic country and who has been accustomed to Apostolic culture and theology throughout his life: not at all. It's immediately and perfectly clear what it says here to me - I don't need some deep, complex explanations of what the author meant, it's just intuitively obvious to me.
I have seen similar Protestant accusations of other, similar phrasings (like the phrase "Mother of God") as being hard to understand or confusing without first learning their meaning, which is supposedly very different from the first interpretation that comes to mind, but I personally haven't been confused by them or led to the "obvious" errors that supposedly flow from such phrasings, and neither, I think, has any Apostolic I personally know.
I suppose that such phrasings aren't of themselves confusing, but become such only after you accustom yourself to Protestant theology, culture, mentality, etc. In such a case, they would be confusing when you are exposed to them, not because they are inherently confusing, but because you are trying to understand them with a Protestant mentality, while their average listener is Apostolic and has mentality and way of thinking completely different from a Protestant one. If you want to understand what an Apostolic thinks when he hears such a phrase, you have to think like an Apostolic, not like a Protestant.
Did you skip over the part where the Angel announces to Mary that she shall bear the Christ? Did she not hear the Word of God and obey it?
Christ did not say Mary is blessed on account of being blessed, but She is all the more blessed that she acquiesced most freely in all grace and in all devotion with her free will, as must all other Saints.
It's a common accusation of Satan that the Holy Mother is just a puppet (according to Fr. Amorth), but no, Christ's perfect Mother crushed all sin with a perfect and pristine will, She was, is, and will always be the New Ark of the Covenant.
Here is a pearl, swine.
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. 17And he is before all, and by him all things consist." Colossians 1:15-17
become flesh, she who would be the means of the Incarnation must also have been present
in the divine thought before every other creature. From this stems Mary’s unique relationship with the Holy Trinity. - Fr. Amorth
If Christ is the first-born of all creatures, then how could God neglect Christ's Mother? How is it idolatrous or sinful to believe She was always marked out, immediately after Christ Himself?
this is why discussion is meaningless on this board. one can only truly understand when approaching something from love. there is rarely love here
Did you skip over the part in Luke where Jesus rebuked the lady that blessed his mother's womb? Did you skip over the commandment that says "thou shall not have other gods before me"?
How can a mere motal have the same power to save someone like God? That is blasphemy!
Where did I say this? Or anything in your post?
Did you even read the OP?
Once more, where did I say of this? Wretched liar.
One more pearl, no more.
John 2:2-5
Jesus is not forced, He acquiesces to His beloved Mother's request. We pray to the Most Holy Mother in the same way, that She may be the mediator between us and Her Son. There is no Mary without Jesus, there is no Mother without the Son, Colossians 1:15-17
May God open your eyes and soften your heart.
The word "save" can have very different meanings depending on context. "Save" in the context of OP means something completely different from "save" as used when regards God saving man.
Nice try, OP. You will never get me to become a heretical protestant.
Oh look, it's another thread where protestants try to convice Apostolics that they worship Mary as a God.
It all stems from your inability to grasp the fact that people in Heaven are alive and pray to God. Just like saints and your great greatmother do, so does our Lady. To think that Christ treats his earthly mother in Heaven the same as Joe from Picksville Ohio is just utterly ridiculous.
No one claimed that. What is being pointed out is that Jesus Himself (who is God) did not give Mary even a special status as one of the faithful, let alone the mumbo jumbo Marian heresy the so-called "apostolic" churches espouse.
Oh look, another dyslexic zealot idolater who can't read. Who said anything about prayer?
I am Romanian. The Orthodox Church is even more corrupt than our political class (which is practically a sort of mafioso establishment in itself). I hardly speak out of ignorance here. I am familiar with "Orthodox" nonsense on a first-hand basis.
You are being very disingenuous. Here, let me help you out with a pair of punctuation marks –
As for the rest of your post, you write a lot and say very little.
Literally nothing here about Mary.
On the contrary, it directly contradicts yet another blasphemous claim in the hymn I posted in the OP, namely that Mary is "the cause of the Good".
Than help a prot like me understand, what is the difference you speak of?
How can Jesus' mom 'save' us while God is the only one that can SAVE us?
seems like doublespeak to me
Jesus refused to meet with Mary when she asked him. It was only a modest request, but he denied it. This means that all that elaborate theology about praying to Mary so that she can pray for you because Jesus can deny your prayer but not her prayer is fatally flawed.
But then people like quote approvingly texts that say that Mary was a special creation of God on the order of Earth and Heaven and is God's current dwelling place. so…….
Oh now you accept praying to Mary to pray for you? Cool then.
Speaking of not knowing how to read, our Lady is not considered a co redemtrix. She is in a sense of spiritually participating in Christ's sacrifice and being the handmaiden of God, so she did have a role in redemtion in that sense.
Pope Benedict XVI said about co redemption:
Therefore, the line in the hymn you're throwing a hissy fit about concerns Mary praying for our salvation.
Oh here we go, Julie that goes to church every Sunday is Christ's mom and has the same role in Heaven as Mary does. Thank you for clarifying that.
More unaddressed blasphemous lyrics:
This only in the first 4 minutes.
…God is outside of time, how can He have begotten His Son without laying out how the entire Passion was going to take place? Christ was begotten, and then Mary was conceived through Her own immaculate conception.
complete brainlet
She gave birth to Jesus Christ you autistic swine, it's a title.
This is why we call her Queen of All Saints, does all of this stuff just fly over your mind? Has Satan taken hold of your wits?
At the very end, we shall all meet your maker, those who told the truth will be revealed. I have my confidence in my Christ, and His Blessed Mother.
Yet another empty post. Are you guys even trying?
It's blasphemy.
Did anyone say otherwise?
Being able to read does not make me a brainlet.
You, not Christ. You call her a great many things.
May God have mercy on your lost soul.
Where in the Bible does Jesus call Mary "Queen of all Saints"? That sounds more like a tradition of man than a teaching from Jesus.
Those verses fly in the face of the facts that:
- God alone is the height of our longing.
- God alone is the cause of that which is good.
- God alone is omnipotent.
- God alone is blameless.
I eagerly await your (judging by the thread so far) non-replies and hand-waving on the matter.
Blasphemous claims justified to date: 0.
It's true. To deny Mary is the Mother of God is blasphemy.
You did. Otherwise, the relevancy of Colossions 1:15 is immediately apparent. If Jesus Christ is the first-born of all creatures, the very first Word of God (begotten, not made), then Mary was picked out for Her status along with the Word. Jesus Christ was always going to save us.
No, being unable to put 2 and 2 together makes you a brainlet. If Jesus Christ is the first-born of all creatures, then what of His Mother?
The beloved disciple looks after His Mother, we know it's not you.
I ask for God's mercy every day, and through the blessed mediation of the Holy Mother and all the Saints and Angels. Brother, pray for me too.
Where does the Bible justify the Bible?
So you admit you have no justification.
Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ on Earth, not the mother of God. God is eternal. He has no mother. See &
I admit to nothing but this: using your own circular justification, Scripture does not justify Scripture.
The Holy Church guided by the Holy Spirit is not the tradition of man, but the teachings of God.
If Mary is not the Mother of God, then Jesus Christ is not God, heretic.
Quality response dude.
Quality deductive logic.
By that, are you trying to imply that Mary precedes Jesus in heavenly existence at the beginning of time?
Be careful, or you'll find yourself worshiping a mother goddess.
Even though its through the scriptures the Word of God is preserved. So according to you, the traditions of a few men in Rome supersede the Word of God…astounding!
You do understand that Christ when He incarnated on the earth had both human and divine nature? You're saying the human side had no mother? You saying God played eeny, meeny, miny, moe when He selected the women to bring his Son to earth?
Things you say bring forth so many ridiculous implications and you completely ignore that.
The traditions of the Apostles and all the Churches founded by the Apostles. You people consistently ignore the fact that all Churches, not only Rome, from Portugal to India have and have always had the same traditions.
Just because you can trace your traditions doesn't make you right.
REPENT FROM YOUR IDOLATRY
...
Imagine such situation: you have a very serious stroke. Unless you receive medical help, you are going to die.
Now suppose that someone notices that you are behaving in a weird way, and calls the medics to come to you, and that these medics provide you with the necessary help, preventing your death. This person can truthfully be said to have saved you, even if it was the medics, not that person, who provided you with the medical attention that saved you from effects of the stroke.
Was Jesus Christ two persons, God and some random human?
Or was he a single person, who was God, and who mysteriously was at the same time a man?
Amen, brother!
Let's take a look at this Cathlodox book that they maintained through their "traditions", they call it the "Bible".
Get of load of this Paul guy. Doesn't he know only God can "save" someone?
Then there's James, he thinks the "prayers" of men can save someone and not God.
Peter thinks baptism "saves" us and not God, another one for the list.
Finally we have Jude who actually commands his readers to "save" other people.
As you can clearly see these Cathlodox "fathers" of their "church" are nothing more than followers after the traditions of men. Thank God for the One True Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church which has maintained the One True Translation of the KJV through His Holy Prophet Steven Anderson (pbuh).
/funpost
What does pbuh stand for?
peace be upon him
t. sași
What's this a reference to?
A German ethnic group in Romania.
mash'allah brother
Who would win?
vs
vs
I think we'd all lose.
"traditions of men" is inapplicable to the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.
if you want "traditions of men", watch this ->
This is just pathetic. James says nothing of the sort in that verse. Same for the rest of your post.
Nice, more evasive responses.
Apa trecând-o ca pe uscat și din răutatea egiptenilor scăpând israeliteanul, striga: Izbăvitorului și Dumnezeului nostru să-I cântăm.
Stih: Preasfântă Născătoare de Dumnezeu, miluiește-ne pe noi.
Subiectul e evreul care il lauda pe Dumnezeu, stihul e refrenul care e sandwichat prin tot paraclisul.
Nu fac parte din aceeasi propozitie.
Behold thy mother
Yeah, that which is good is Jesus, you nestorian
Theotokos
Mary is acknowledged as leading a holy life.
So tell me, what do you Romanians this about the Eastern Catholic Church in your region?
Saddening if it weren't enraging.
hello arius
Monophysites, Aryans, Iconoclasts etc, etc, etc.
These were all dealt with by the Church, yet you idiots just keep making them up as your own ideas.
It's quite impressive, really. How much different peoples come up with similar heresies.
What you posted is also a prayer, I'd expect one who is "familiar with "Orthodox" nonsense on a first-hand basis" to understand that.
That being said, Mary saves us in the exact same way that the person who first introduced you to Christ or brought you to church saved you. Why shouldn't we thank her continually? To continue my with example of "being saved" every time I see the woman who told me about the Orthodox Church in my town, I thank her and have a good conversation with her. Why wouldn't I do the same with Mary?
All of that is because she is blessed among women. Luke 1:42 "In a loud voice she exclaimed 'Blessed are you among women and blessed is the child you will bear!"
Thus she is the cause of that which is good, because Christ entered the world through her and He is good.
i'm catholic myself but when i read at least part of the total devotion to mary i was shocked myself. like how is this not marian maximalism? it just seems way to extreme to me. i dont think this approach was taken by any of the doctors of the church, so clearly this is not necessary, and is it truly the best way to do things? i suppose that's just the opinion of the author, but i mean it just seems so extreme. its just mary mary mary (oh yeah but its okay mary leads you to god) but everything is just mary mary mary a billion times over.
i mean if that attracts you do it but how can this be the best way when this extremeness hasn't been practiced by probably the majority of all canonized saints, and definitely not the doctors of the church.
He's just a Bishop, and he's not my bishop. Furthermore, I never said a single thing about worshiping her.
Ok.
please explain this, sounds like a heresy to me.
The absolute state of Apostolics. Gabriel never lied to Mary. Point out to me where Gabriel said
I'll wait
Yet its in your theology that Mary can save people. How can she save anyone? How can she have the power of God? she cant, thats blasphemy
Please learn to read, I addressed this here
quoted so that you can't claim you didn't see what I was pointing to.
Expect they believe in the immaculate conception, that Mary is sinless, therefore when one asks to be like Mary it is asking to be as close to God as is possible for a human, thus Mary is the height of our longing.
If you want to be like God, that is blasphemy, but wanting to be as close to God as Mary was is not. Do you get what I'm laying down here Patrick?
Mary was a virgin from the line of David. Is that not enough?
Louis de Montfort, in the book linked to approvingly in says that Mary was a special creation of God on the order of Earth and Heaven and that God lives inside the world of Mary right now. That sounds a lot like reaching for justifications to worship a creature by lawyering that she isn't a creature if she's a created place instead. Please no.
its only bad when papists do it
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. 17And he is before all, and by him all things consist
colossians 1:15-17 (for the second time!)
Forgive the most mild insult, but your insistence on the word "lawyerly" on BASIC deductive reasoning is silly. If Christ was first before all creatures, then Mary may literally be the first creature (alongside the Son; wherein, She is the Mother of this most Blessed Son!) among all creatures. TRULY, Mary must have been a special creature, for She is the new Ark of the Covenant.
O Mary, truly you are holy!
O Holy Mary, pray for us!
It's a mixed opinion, and it depends on the person being asked.
On one hand:
-had an important part in our national awakening;
-suffered and got mauled hard under communism, for being indirectly in communion with the West. Most of them got folded into the OC, but their leadership refused, and got imprisoned, and martyred(lots of the orthodox did as well, but the greek-catholic were decapitated as a whole, administration wise);
-cultured in general;
On the other:
-their entire creation was a political game to bring the romanians and co under hungarian dominion. As a sidenote, that also means if you are greek-catholic, you are 95% likely to be transylvanian who's ancestors were a bit cozy with the magyars(see map);
-to make that terms of the deal more…attractive:
=on one hand they were promised they'd get rights, like the ruling 3 cath-prot ethnicities, which some gleefuly jumped at(didn't get them in the end, and make the whole deal look like they acted a bit like sluts for those that did accept);
=on the other, there were plenty of orthodox that were forced to accept it, or got persecuted by the authorities for refusing the Act of Union(imperial cannons demolishing orthodox monasteries is a "Remember Goliad!" type meme when the greek-catholics are brought up). There are some town and villages at the border with Transylvanian that were made by transylvanians that fled from it, including the one where our next patriarch is likely to be from;
-greek-catholics involved in our awakening also created shit like the transylvanian school, which were legendary for massive latinboos(not surprising they'd stress our connection to Rome) and we wuzzers;
So, generally ok, but there's still some bad blood for each side throwing the other under the bus during Hapsburg/commie times;
So tell me if I have this straight:
- First God the Father makes Mary who is a place and also a human somehow.
- Then God the Father and Mary make Jesus in some unspecified fashion. This is how Jesus gets to be both God and man.
- Then God the Father and Jesus make Heaven and Earth and all the angels and the non-place humans. It is unclear if Mary takes part in this directly.
- After that God the Father lives inside the Mary place while much time passes on Earth.
- Then much later Mary incarnates on Earth, born from an ordinary non-place human woman.
- Then Mary on Earth gets a message from Gabriel and gives birth to Jesus again.
If the above is at all like accepted Catholic mariology, the situation inside the Roman Catholic Church is much worse than I ever imagined possible.
Why are you so obtuse?
Birth=/=creation;
-Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, exists since forever
-God creates the world
-Some time in 1st century BC, He creates Mary
-Mary conceives Jesus of Holy Spirit
-Jesus, who already existed since forever, now becomes child of Mary
I was only trying to make sense of ea13ba's viewpoint, which seems to be based on Louis de Montfort… or should I say St. Louis de Montfort, because the Catholic Church officially made him a saint in 1947. A saint. With that theology, supposedly received from divine revelation.
Thanks for telling me this, I hope relations between your two religions improve.
Yes, that's completely logical.
She GAVE BIRTH, as in you know, supported the fetus while in womb, and then brought the Child into the world, and raised it.
If i somehow implanted a frozen fertilized egg from 2k years ago into a woman, that woman would be the biological and legal mother, despite the kid existing since the time of Tiberius and Germanicus, and that woman being born in the 90's.
Get it now?
It's not that bad, tbh.
she would be the surrogate mother, the biological would be the woman who the egg came from 2k years ago
Let me correct you, brother.
1. God is outside of Time
2. He has ordained and consecrated us far in advance of us actually existing, there is no point where He says "ok 961a96's parents have copulated, time to create a 961a96".
3. Taken all of this together, Mary has been a sanctified and graceful seat of Jesus Christ since He was begotten, which is even outside of time.
I don't know who he is actually.
Yes, with God all things are possible.
Where did I say this? Jesus is begotten, not made, first-born of all creatures. Mary is not before Jesus, but must have been shortly after.
She did not.
wat
the rest of the stuff I have no idea what you're talking about, either all this Mariology is flying completely over your head, or you're addressing some argument I'm not versed in. Again, I'm not actually aware of St. Mont-fort or any other theologians.
Well, yeah, technically, i stand corrected.
Was just giving a rough analogy for how you can be a mother so something that's way older than you.
In Mary's case, she is also the one with the egg and genes.
But how do we know that Mary is not a surrogate mother? Nothing in the Bible says she contributed any genetic material. This includes the list of her ancestors, because Joseph's line was recounted too as ancestors of Jesus even though Joseph definitely didn't contribute any genes. It was about being a legal descendant.
There is also the issue of soul vs. body. Even if the human body and its genes were formed using Mary's ovum around 3 B.C. when "the Word became flesh", that doesn't mean that before the Word became flesh Mary was his biological mother.
Nobody of Jesus's own time or generation or even of Mary's family ever denied that He was a legitimate Son of Mary. Not even the Talmud, which apparently takes its blasphemous lies from the false Jews of the time of Christ, denies that Jesus was the son of Mary.
Once, more read Colossians 1:15-17. Unless you seriously mean to imply that God just randomly chose Mary through a…lottery system or something, then Mary was always picked out as a sinless Mother for the child Christ.
Once again, ALL OF US are known and consecrated before we are born to any of our mothers, this would also include the fleshly generation of Jesus Christ, through the sinless Virgin Mary.
True, perhaps saying something like
would be more correct than "Jesus exists since forever"
But there always is a point in the history of our Earth when 961a96, his choice and decision, although down to the smallest detail preordained and so present in God's thoughts, actually get implemented and 961a96 begins to exist.
Are you saying "it is clear she took part in creation"? Or are you saying "its clear that she did NOT take part in creation"?